Hurricanes and AGW

As I wrote a very short time back, hurricanes and their supposed increased intensities are not related to Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). This conclusion is based on the necessary and sufficient evidence that the warming of SST's (Sea Surface Temperatures) is driven by decadal cycles in both Atlantic and Pacific oceans. So the currently warmer temperature of the sea surfaces is due to natural, recurring causes, not AGW. These issues are outlined in an AP article out today, written by Seth Borenstein:

Another group of experts, those who study hurricanes and who are more often skeptical about global warming, say there is no link. They attribute the recent increase to a natural multi-decade cycle.

Now a proponent of AGW has surfaced to say the same thing. According to the AP, Tom Knutson, with NOAA has a computer model that also refutes these claims:

What makes this study different is Knutson, a meteorologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's fluid dynamics lab in Princeton, N.J.

He has warned about the harmful effects of climate change and has even complained in the past about being censored by the Bush administration on past studies on the dangers of global warming.

He said his new study, based on a computer model, argues "against the notion that we've already seen a really dramatic increase in Atlantic hurricane activity resulting from greenhouse warming."

His model predicts far fewer hurricanes, and a slight increase in strength: 2%, along with worse tropical storms and more rainfall.

Other computer modellers jumped on knutson's results, claiming a bad model. (Where have we heard that before?) But wait! Knutson admits to limitations to his model:

He said the latest model doesn't produce storms surpassing 112 mph.

But NOAA hurricane meteorologist Chris Landsea, who wasn't part of this study, praised Knutson's work as "very consistent with what's being said all along."
"I think global warming is a big concern, but when it comes to hurricanes the evidence for changes is pretty darn tiny," Landsea said.

Bottom line seems to be that there are a number of scientists pushing their own models and decrying other's models, all the while ignoring the decadal oscillations in SST's that have been there all along. How do these guys continue to draw paychecks? Oh yeah, they are taxpayer funded, gummint employees.